Rep. David Schweikert has been removed from his seat on the House Financial Services Committee, and aides to the Arizona Republican claim the move was retaliation for voting against House GOP leaders too often.

Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and other top Republicans were huddled in a Steering Committee meeting on Monday. That panel, which is controlled in large part by Boehner, decides who sits on the various House committees.

This morning Congressman Schweikert learned there was a price to be paid for voting based on principle. That price was the removal from the House Financial Services Committee, said Rachel Semmel, Schweikerts spokesman in a statement to POLITICO. We are obviously disappointed that Leadership chose to take this course, but Rep. Schweikert remains committed to fighting for the conservative principles that brought him here. [...]

Probably the best way to send a message to Boehner is through his home district in Ohio. Since nobody can challenge him in the primary, yet, the best bet would be to deconstruct him in his district.

This would be with a slow and steady drumbeat of his failings through some local media. The idea is to overload his constituents with a million negative things, to the point where the mere mention of his name makes them wince.

This takes a toll on politicians, as word will leak back to him, and he will likely try to suppress it, and won’t be able to.

12
posted on 12/03/2012 4:23:20 PM PST
by yefragetuwrabrumuy
(Pennies and Nickels will NO LONGER be Minted as of 1/1/13 - Tim Geithner, US Treasury Sect)

On close votes, he’s been voting against Boehner on conservative principles when Boehner needs a vote to close a deal with the liberal Democrats. Really, conservatives are considered more of an enemy to the Boehners of the world than are liberals.

McCain is another case study: He fights, and spends more political ad money against conservative challengers to his power than he does against the Dems.

15
posted on 12/03/2012 4:29:21 PM PST
by Cyber Liberty
(Obama considers the Third World morally superior to the United States.)

The 2008 bailout fight was a good example of good republicans voting against both parties. My congressman voted against it and was stripped of money in the final weeks of the campaign and lost by 2%. The democrat that replaced him voted for Obamacare.

In 2010 we sent my congressman back to Washington and reelected him by a wide margin in 2012.

19
posted on 12/03/2012 4:35:55 PM PST
by cripplecreek
(REMEMBER THE RIVER RAISIN!)

I’m in Ohio’s 2nd and Boehner is in the 1st. I grew up, however, in what is the 1st. It is primarily a conservative Catholic region, middle class, and German heritage to a large degree. I don’t expect them to be radically tea party, since they’re not radically anything, and I wouldn’t expect an anti-Boehner campaign to have much effect.

20
posted on 12/03/2012 4:40:17 PM PST
by xzins
(Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! True supporters of our troops pray for their victory!)

No 3rd party candidate will never amount to anything. The Republicans and Democrats collude in every state to prevent 3rd parties from succeeding. Ron Paul's first run for the Presidency was on the Libertarian ticket. What he discovered was that every single penny collected from campaign donations had to be spent fighting legal hurdles just to get on the ballot. And he had to fight these battles in every state individually. That left no money to actually campaign with. The system is rigged against 3rd parties and until that changes 3rd parties won't matter.

Im not real clear about his voting. When he votes against Boehner and the republicans, does that mean he is voting WITH the democrats?

I believe it to mean that while he is in their committee meetings, his ideas of conservative policy are different/oppositve of Boehner's people in there - he is opposing what they want. They don't want to deal with his dissention, so they are dumping him.

Or we can just say that Mr. Speaker was the one to help give the dems and the media an issue to divide. He worked so well when passing those changes in resolution(12, 15, and 16) at the convention over what was clearly a 50/50 yea/nay voice vote. When corruption runs deep in our own leadership, lets keep the blame where it belongs. The left will always be thuggish, we don’t need them in this party as well and yet it is being excused.

27
posted on 12/03/2012 5:40:04 PM PST
by DarkWaters
("Deception is a state of mind --- and the mind of the state" --- James Jesus Angleton)

Are you saying Schweikert may have peed on Boehner's shoes and that was the reason for the ouster? Rep. Schweikert seems to be a loose cannon with the pragmatics, so his convictions need to be stripped.

This should clue you in:

Should it become apparent that you are choosing sides on behalf of Rep. Quayle, the Club for Growth PAC will consider it necessary to intervene on behalf of Rep. Schweikert," Chocola writes. "As is our practice, if the Club's PAC entered this primary, it is highly likely that our 75,000 members would donate considerably more funds to Rep. Schweikert's campaign than the Republican House leadership would contribute to Rep. Quayle's campaign.

It is our preference to remain on the sidelines of the Arizona race, as both candidates have fine records. However, we will not sit back and allow House Republican leaders to invest resources with impunity against an incumbent fiscal conservative like Rep. David Schweikert. Rep. Schweikert stands for the principles of economic freedom even when members of his own party pressure him to do otherwise. If those same Republican leaders attempt to defeat him, the Club for Growth PAC will vigorously come to his defense.

http://www.clubforgrowth.org/assets/files/FinalAZ06Letter.pdf

Your boy Boehner, who you routinely defend, is just showing his true "moderate" colors and sad his pony lost, would rather him just cry it out than take it out on Schweikert's position).

Seems the only one doing the dividing is Boehner, unless you think Schweikert was not booted. From the Club for Growth letter, Boehner sure paid in full to see that Schweikert became “primaried”. Do you think Bush inc. pressured Boehner’s hand because Danny Boy's son lost?

Here was the opportunity the GOP House had back in August 2011 to put an end to deficit spending by refusing to raise the debt ceiling. Obama asked for another $2.5 trillion. Schweikert said no. Boehner said yes. I'll take a Schweikert over a Boehner any day.

44
posted on 12/03/2012 7:16:35 PM PST
by Hoodat
("As for God, His way is perfect" - Psalm 18:30)

Then what's up? You always never explain your master's actions or in-actions over the last 1 3/4 years when people criticize Boehner as Speaker. “It's all the MSMs fault, yada-yada-yada, you are naive” bull feces that is as empty as Jesus' tomb.

The only naivete on display are you and a gutless Speaker of the House who seems to apparently have no problem purging fiscal reserved Representatives from committeeships and making bad deals with democrats.

I will wait till all this settles before commenting again in hopes of some type of strategic maneuvering by the crybaby, but he better have something special up his sleeve besides cuts in the rate of growth and ending several tax deductions.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.